U.S. Ladies Prediction & Speculation Thread | Page 4 | Golden Skate

U.S. Ladies Prediction & Speculation Thread

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Ever since Sarah Hughes left (one of my all-time favorites, along with Sonja Henie, Oksana Baiul, Elvis Stojko, and Evgeni Plushenko),

But no one has yet captured my heart like Sarah, Sonja, Oksana, Elvis, and Evgeni have. With them, I was there from the very beginning, love at first sight as regards their skating. :)^)

You were there from the beginning of Sonja's career? Wasn't that around 1924? :eek: ;)

and I thought after mathman I was the oldest poster at GS :laugh:
 
Last edited:

Nadine

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 3, 2003
Lol, I realized my mistake after posting, but I thought most would know what I mean. :D

Actually it was the incomparable Dorothy Hamill whom first turned me onto skating as a young babe (lol, I even had her haircut in elementary school), but it was Sonja Henie who made me love it. I read all I could about her back then, the start of a love of history, and even have a little mini museum devoted to her (along with those I mentioned previously).

But back on topic, I really am looking forward to seeing what the Americans can do. At the same time though there is a pang in my heart knowing that the Russians have Elizaveta, Japan Mao Asada (& Miki Ando), and the USA no female that can do a 3A or 4S. :( Seriously, I am sad about this because the jumps are special to me.
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I have to be honest though and say I am disappointed that no American female has appeared that can do a 3A (shades of Tonya Harding's rousing skating from the old days). We used to be such a force in women's skating, always blazing the path for everyone else to follow (both technical & presentation), and now for the first time in history not one American female medalled at this past Olympics. I'm hoping we catch up with the rest of the world, especially when it comes to the technical aspect. I do have "hope". :)^)

Yeah, the last one that tried was Meissner, and I think she was only successful once (2005 Nats). Then again, the 3A isn't everything as we saw Asada do TWO of them in Vancouver and it still wasn't enough for the OGM. I think it will be worth more points this year. I don't know of any of the current American ladies that can do one, but honestly, I think we have bigger concerns than that. First, we need a lady who can CONSISTENTLY be competitive at the top. That's what's been missing since 4 years ago. No one to challenge at the top. Kwan and Cohen sure left a massive void in US women's skating, that's for sure. Hopefully last cycle was a rebuilding phase and we'll see the re-emergence of the American ladies this cycle.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I get surprised at times when posters make the GP events more important than they are.

I look at it like this. Athletes should take every competition seriously in its own right, never mind what happens later. Tdd Eldredge won five Skate America titles, the most of almost anyone. ;) I think, and I hope Todd does, too, that that's a pretty cool achievement, whether he went on to win the world championship or not. Katy Taylor won the 2006 Four Continents! Ta-da!

About success on the Grand Prix and reputation judging at U.S. Nationals, I tend to agree with you that the effect is minor. Yes, judges are human and reputation is reputation. Still, I hope that everyone connected with the USFSA will continue to regard the U.S. championship as a big deal in its own right, not just as a stepping stone to worlds. Hey, you just won the championship of the whole U.S. of everlovin' A.!!!!
 

Layfan

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
I look at it like this. Athletes should take every competition seriously in its own right, never mind what happens later. Tdd Eldredge won five Skate America titles, the most of almost anyone. ;) I think, and I hope Todd does, too, that that's a pretty cool achievement, whether he went on to win the world championship or not. Katy Taylor won the 2006 Four Continents! Ta-da!

About success on the Grand Prix and reputation judging at U.S. Nationals, I tend to agree with you that the effect is minor. Yes, judges are human and reputation is reputation. Still, I hope that everyone connected with the USFSA will continue to regard the U.S. championship as a big deal in its own right, not just as a stepping stone to worlds. Hey, you just won the championship of the whole U.S. of everlovin' A.!!!!

True, Nationals is a big deal competition in an of itself. Mirai may have done better than Rachael at the Olympics but she is not national champion. I'm sure that will be a goal for her, not just making the world team.
It all depends on context. Rudy Galiano's 1996 national champion was huge. It was the highlight of the career and was almost like winning a worlds for him. Alissa Czisny's 2009 national championship... not so much. I'm sure she treasures the moment but she's got to wish that she had won with an amazing FS skate and gone on to do well at worlds. And Jeremy Abbott is another champion who can't seem to medal at worlds. He's a two-time champ, which is nice, but he was been completely overshadowed by Evan.
 

PolymerBob

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Still, I hope that everyone connected with the USFSA will continue to regard the U.S. championship as a big deal in its own right, not just as a stepping stone to worlds. Hey, you just won the championship of the whole U.S. of everlovin' A.!!!!

Well, you might be dissappointed there. Here are the Team A, Tier 1 criteria for the 2009 - 2010 season.

Team A - Tier 1

-Medalists (top three) at the 2009 World Championships
-2009 U.S. senior champions

And here are the Team A, Tier 1 criteria for the 2010 - 2011 season.

Team A - Tier 1
-Placements 1st-3rd at the 2011 ISU World Figure Skating Championships
-2011 U.S. senior champion combined with a top-10 finish at 2011 ISU World Figure Skating Championships

Apparently being U.S. champion no longer guarantees Team A Tier 1. Some posters have called this the Abbott/Czisny rule. Of course, we all remember those infamous rules for picking the Olympic team.
I think what's going on here is that the USFSA is starting to value US championships less because, well let's face it, no matter how bad our skaters are, there will always be US champions. Our skaters can all zamboni the ice with their butts, there will ALWAYS be US champions.
What the USFSA values are skaters can go out into the world and battle the foreign warriors.
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
And here are the Team A, Tier 1 criteria for the 2010 - 2011 season.

Team A - Tier 1
-Placements 1st-3rd at the 2011 ISU World Figure Skating Championships
-2011 U.S. senior champion combined with a top-10 finish at 2011 ISU World Figure Skating Championships

Apparently being U.S. champion no longer guarantees Team A Tier 1. Some posters have called this the Abbott/Czisny rule. Of course, we all remember those infamous rules for picking the Olympic team.
I think what's going on here is that the USFSA is starting to value US championships less because, well let's face it, no matter how bad our skaters are, there will always be US champions.

:eek: Really? Wow. I think the issue is that traditionally, the US champion places top 10 at Worlds anyway so there was no need to specify it. My, how times change!!
 
Last edited:

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Well, you might be dissappointed there. Here are the Team A, Tier 1 criteria for the 2009 - 2010 season.

Team A - Tier 1

-Medalists (top three) at the 2009 World Championships
-2009 U.S. senior champions

And here are the Team A, Tier 1 criteria for the 2010 - 2011 season.

Team A - Tier 1
-Placements 1st-3rd at the 2011 ISU World Figure Skating Championships
-2011 U.S. senior champion combined with a top-10 finish at 2011 ISU World Figure Skating Championships

Apparently being U.S. champion no longer guarantees Team A Tier 1. Some posters have called this the Abbott/Czisny rule. Of course, we all remember those infamous rules for picking the Olympic team.
I think what's going on here is that the USFSA is starting to value US championships less because, well let's face it, no matter how bad our skaters are, there will always be US champions. Our skaters can all zamboni the ice with their butts, there will ALWAYS be US champions.
.

I think part of the point some of us were making earlier was that the GP series is not anywhere near as important as nationals or Worlds. I don't think I read a single post here that said Worlds was not important or that has anything to do with the point of your post. Did I miss an argument somewhere that Worlds is not important?

US Skating has a major network contract for Nationals. It will always be important even to new fans who haven't followed it for a long time. The criteria for better or worse seems OK to me.
 

Layfan

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Well, you might be dissappointed there. Here are the Team A, Tier 1 criteria for the 2009 - 2010 season.

Team A - Tier 1

-Medalists (top three) at the 2009 World Championships
-2009 U.S. senior champions

And here are the Team A, Tier 1 criteria for the 2010 - 2011 season.

Team A - Tier 1
-Placements 1st-3rd at the 2011 ISU World Figure Skating Championships
-2011 U.S. senior champion combined with a top-10 finish at 2011 ISU World Figure Skating Championships

Apparently being U.S. champion no longer guarantees Team A Tier 1. Some posters have called this the Abbott/Czisny rule. Of course, we all remember those infamous rules for picking the Olympic team.
I think what's going on here is that the USFSA is starting to value US championships less because, well let's face it, no matter how bad our skaters are, there will always be US champions. Our skaters can all zamboni the ice with their butts, there will ALWAYS be US champions. What the USFSA values are skaters can go out into the world and battle the foreign warriors.



I never thought of it that way ...

But I don't know if I like that rule...

So basically, only Mirai and Rachael are guaranteed a spot on the world team if they are national champion, correct? If Alissa or Ashley or Christina or anyone else wins they might be left off the team? Would that be unprecedented? I'd really like to see them try it ... Imagine if they diss the national champion only to see whoever they send fall apart at worlds. Yeah, that would make them look like geniuses. Anyone can fall apart. Heck Mirai and Rachael both flubbed at last year's worlds.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
I never thought of it that way ...

But I don't know if I like that rule...

So basically, only Mirai and Rachael are guaranteed a spot on the world team if they are national champion, correct? If Alissa or Ashley or Christina or anyone else wins they might be left off the team? Would that be unprecedented? I'd really like to see them try it ... Imagine if they diss the national champion only to see whoever they send fall apart at worlds. Yeah, that would make them look like geniuses. Anyone can fall apart. Heck Mirai and Rachael both flubbed at last year's worlds.

If US Skating values Natls less how does anyone explain that Rachael, our Natl champ got better funding than Mirai, who did better at the Olympics and Worlds?
Natls devalued? I think not! :p

This is nonsense and contradictory.
 
Last edited:

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Good point.

I have no idea what point Polymeer bob is trying to make.

It doesn't matter what theories or rules he cites - we know that the medalists at Natls will be the skaters sent to Worlds and the Olympics.

In extreme cases (Michelle's petition) this can change. Otherwise it is a tradition begun before most here followed skating. I doubt it will change anytime soon - certainly not for the GP series or over funding envelopes.
 
Last edited:

PolymerBob

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
So basically, only Mirai and Rachael are guaranteed a spot on the world team if they are national champion, correct? If Alissa or Ashley or Christina or anyone else wins they might be left off the team? Would that be unprecedented?

Actually no. This is envelope criteria, which controls funding. It does not control who gets sent to which event. The top 2 ladies at Nationals will go to Worlds. Other events do not have any bearing except to the extent that they influence the National judges.
 

Layfan

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Actually no. This is envelope criteria, which controls funding. It does not control who gets sent to which event. The top 2 ladies at Nationals will go to Worlds. Other events do not have any bearing except to the extent that they influence the National judges.

Ah, okay, sorry!! I thought they had changed the rules about choosing the team, but it's just that funding business again. Whew.

But I think Janetfan raises a good point: The way those rules apply they STILL value the national championships a little more than even worlds. To get better funding than the U.S. champ you have to medal plus have the national champ finish lower than 10th, correct? You can't just do better than the U.S. champ at worlds. So even Flatt wouldn't have pulled it off in 2009, I understand correctly. She and Alissa both would have been in a lower tier, no?

Anyway, sure, past events must color the judge's eyes a little but only to an extent. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who was given clear preferential treatment, or negative treatment at nats just because of the GP or other past events.
R.D. tried to make a case for 2010 speculating that Ashley would have made the team instead of Mirai if she hadn't fallen on her SP. Mayyyybeee... OTH, if that's how they were thinking you would think they would have given Rachael better treatment, given her fifth place finish at 2009 worlds which is really more impressive than Ashley's fourth at the GP final. Yet Rachael placed third in the SP behind Cohen and Mirai even though Rachael had no clear mistakes. They gave Mirai 70. I mean, they placed her ahead of Sasha Cohen.... My point is, you can try to read into things but in the end, the top two finishers were the ones with the two best skates in 2010. Not the ones with the better results at the GP or any of the rest.
 
Last edited:

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
If Evan had continued this season he would have received A1 funding. He wasn't the natl champion, only the Olympic champion and Grand Prix Champion and 09' WC.

Jeremy as Natl champion also received A1 funding.
Do I need to cite a rule book for giving Evan A1 funding? No, it only takes a teenie bit of common sense.

Giving Evan A1 funding would not be diminishing Natls or anything else. It would be a matter of recognizing his accomplishments.
 

PolymerBob

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
But I think Janetfan raises a good point: The way those rules apply they STILL value the national championships a little more than even worlds. To get better funding than the U.S. champ you have to medal plus have the national champ finish lower than 10th, correct?

It appears that Worlds is valued more highly than the US Championship for the purposes of funding. Make the podium at Worlds, you are in Team A, Tier 1. Maximum $$$$$$. Your National placement is irrelevant.
Win US Nationals, you are in Team A, but not necessarily Tier 1. You still have to do a little work to make Tier 1.
 
Last edited:

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
It appears that Worlds is valued more highly than the US Championship. Make the podium at Worlds, you are in Team A, Tier 1. Maximum $$$$$$. Your National placement is irrelevant.
Win US Nationals, you are in Team A, but not necessarily Tier 1. You still have to do a little work to make Tier 1.

Bob - show me a post where anybody said Worlds was not important. Please!
You are making an argument against yourself in a way because for the last few years you have posted often how important the GP series is.

I hope you realize that the GP series is not the same as Worlds.
No one cares that Sasha was a GP champion. We sort of remember that despite her talent she never managed to win a WC. A huge difference there, no?

Again, with all due respect - i have no idea what in the world your point is here.
If it is about funding - no problem. Mirai came 4th and 7th at the Olympics and Worlds. She beat Rachael at both of the biggest international skating events of the year.

Yet Rachael beat Mirai at Natls. Rachael has higher funding than Mira. Tell me how Natls are devalued, tell me why US skating no longer cares about it's own premier showcase event of the year :bang:
 
Last edited:

PolymerBob

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Bob - show me a post where anybody said Worlds was not important. Please!
You are making an argument against yourself in a way because for the last few years you have posted often how important the GP series is.

I think the same misunderstanding keeps popping up. We were discussing funding envelopes. I will amend my post to avoid confusion.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Well, you might be dissappointed there.///

I am, somewhat. It does seem like the USFSA is trying to become a tiny bit more global and a little less parochial.

Polymer Bob said:
...let's face it, no matter how bad our skaters are, there will always be US champions. Our skaters can all zamboni the ice with their butts, there will ALWAYS be US champions.

Actually, that's how I feel about the Olympic games. No matter how badly everyone skates, every four years there will automatically be another gold medalist to add to the list.
 
Top